Court No. - 42

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16663 of 2022

Applicant :- Khemraj Kushwaha And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Jeet Singh,Chandra Jeet Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire

proceedings of Complaint Case No.148 of 2019 (Izhar Ali vs. Wahid Mansoori

and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1427 of 2018, under Sections 147,

395, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. - G.R.P. Jhansi, District - Jhansi including the

summoning order dated 11.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.)

Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi.

Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for applicants submits that initially First

Information Report was lodged, however, after investigation, final report was

submitted. Thereafter, complainant has filed protest petition which was treated

as a complaint case and after statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202

Cr.P.C., applicants were summoned. He further submits that in the statement of

complainant, recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C., main allegation is against one co-accused

Wahid and applicants were named as they have accompanied accused Wahid

even the addresses were wrong. Therefore, the circumstance warrants

interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submission and relied upon the contents

of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that complainant has

specifically named the applicants as accused, who have robbed Rs.10,600/- from

complainant. At the stage of summoning, the Trial Court has to see the contents

of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

wherein specific allegations are made against the applicants. Therefore, it is not

a case where interference is warranted by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The law with regard to interference under inherent jurisdiction of issue of

process on complaint case is well settled which is summarized in following

paragraphs:

(I) The procedural scheme in respect of the complaints made to Magistrate is

provided under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a complaint

being made to a Magistrate, he is required to examine the complainant on oath

and the witnesses, if any, (Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.) and then on considering

the complaint and the statements on oath, if he is of the opinion that there is no

sufficient ground for proceeding, the complaint shall be dismissed after

recording brief reasons (Section 203 Cr.P.C.). Section 201 Cr.P.C. states that in

case Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence he shall,

(i) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court

with an endorsement to that effect; (ii) if the complaint is not in writing, direct

the complainant to go to the proper Court.

(II) The Magistrate may on receipt of a complaint of which he is authorised to

take cognizance proceed with further inquiry into the allegations made in the

complaint either himself or direct an investigation into the allegations in the

complaint to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit

for the purpose of deciding, whether or not there is sufficient ground for

proceeding (Section 202 Cr.P.C.), in that event, the Magistrate in fact postpones

the issue of process. It is Provided in Section 202 Cr.P.C. that no such direction

for investigation shall be made, (i) where it appears to the Magistrate that the

offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (ii)

where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and

the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200

Cr.P.C.. In an inquiry under Sub-Section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit,

take evidence of witness on oath, provided tha